[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20091117182131.0d91fc0e@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk>
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 2009 18:21:31 +0000
From: Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>
To: Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz <bzolnier@...il.com>
Cc: Alan Cox <alan@...ux.intel.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-ide@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/5] pata_sis: Implement MWDMA for the UDMA 133 capable
chips
> > I'm not convinced because for the majority of drivers the libata timing
> > interface handles it. SiS needs it just because it does things by
> > precomputed tables. It's a one off interface.
>
> Controllers based on *Intel* PIIX are in the disagreement with the above
No the PIIX is quite different. You use the matching PIO timing (which is
a short lookup and shorter code than even a helper function call). You do
not use the clipping instead you set bit 3 to ensure that PIO cycles
occur at low speed but MWDMA runs at the right speed. That is usually a
win over picking a lower mode as the PIIX can do ATAPI DMA happily.
So the only thing you can "share" is what would be a 4 byte table.
> paragraph and having generic helper to do conversion (without a clipping)
> would bring us a little step closer to killing a needless code duplication
> currently present in their ->set_piomode and ->set_dmamode methods.
>
> [ In case somebody wonders: no, 'old' drivers don't have such duplication
> and 'whoever did it didn't port it across' cause said 'whoever'-s were not
> into the development of the square wheels.... ]
There is no duplication in the old drivers because they don't implement
the needed check and clipping/bit setting that I can see ;)
Alan
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists